Top Banner
1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley [email protected]
79

1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley [email protected].

Dec 15, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

1

George Mason School of Law

Contracts I

Promissory Estoppel

F.H. Buckley

[email protected]

Page 2: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

2

Estoppel

Estoppel by representation of fact

Promissory estoppel

Page 3: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

3

Estoppel: An Ideological Battle?

Oliver Wendell Holmes Samuel Williston Arthur Corbin

Page 4: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

4

Promisory Estoppel and RelianceA sword, not a Shield

Page 5: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Ricketts v. Scothorn

I assume you were as distressed as I was at this example of male chauvinism…

5

Page 6: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Ricketts v. Scothorn

Was there consideration given by Katie for the promise? What was the reliance?

6

Page 7: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

7

George Mason School of Law

Contracts I

Promissory Estoppel

F.H. Buckley

[email protected]

Page 8: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Exam

Writing by laptop

Four questions, Two hours…

8

Page 9: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

What kind of reliance is needed?

Suppose I promise you $1,000,000 and, believing me, you purchase a new car. I renege. Have you relied? And would this ground a remedy?

9

Page 10: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

What kind of reliance is needed?

Suppose I promise you $1,000,000 and, believing me, you feel overjoyed. Have you relied?

10

Page 11: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Psychic Reliance What happens when the cheque bounces tomorrow…

11

Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy

Page 12: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

What kind of reliance is needed?

Suppose I promise you $1,000,000, and have no intention of performing, but think it would be amusing to fool you.

12

Page 13: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Haase v. Cardoza

Was the promise supported by consideration?

13

Page 14: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Haase v. Cardoza

Was the promise supported by consideration?

What about reliance?

14

Page 15: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Haase v. Cardoza

What about reliance?

The former restatement provided for no relief unless the reliance was “definite and substantial.” What is the effect of the change?

15

Page 16: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Haase v. Cardoza

What about reliance?

Present Restatement § 90 conditions relief: “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.” What does that mean?

16

Page 17: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Wright v. Newman (p. 160)

How would you decide this?

What was the reliance?

17

Page 18: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

18

Page 19: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

And why might he not? In a case such as Haase…

19

Page 20: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

And why might he not? Cf. Ricketts

20

Page 21: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

And why might he not? Cf. Ricketts How would you expect promisors to

react, in an interfamily setting, if all promises were enforceable.

21

Page 22: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

And why might he not? How would you expect promisors to

react, in an interfamily setting, if all promises were enforceable. Fewer promises Conditional promises

22

Page 23: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why might a promisor want to incur legal liability?

And why might he not? Might promisees sometimes be better off

if family promises are not enforceable?

23

Page 24: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Employment Context

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer What was the promise and why was it

made?

24

Page 25: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Employment Context

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer What was the promise and why was it

made? What was the reliance?

25

Page 26: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Employment Context

Feinberg v. Pfeiffer What was the promise and why was it

made? What was the reliance?

What it relevant that she discovered she had cancer?

26

Page 27: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why a different result in Hayes?

27

Page 28: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why a different result in Hayes?

Feinberg retired after the promise; Hayes decided to retire before the promise, and retired a week after it was made

No formal provision, no board resolution

28

Page 29: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why a different result in Hayes?

Did Hayes have a bad lawyer?

29

Page 30: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Why a different result in Hayes?

Did the promisors intend to assume legal liability in this case? In Feinberg?

30

Page 31: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Chartiable Subscriptions

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell

Charles City College operated from 1967 to 1968. It welcomed unconventional students who had not seen success at other colleges. It [was] also attended by a substantial number of young men seeking draft deferments that would allow them to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. (Wikipedia)

31

Page 32: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Chartiable Subscriptions

You and I meet and agree that we will both donate $5,000 to a college Consideration?

32

Page 33: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Chartiable Subscriptions

I pledge $1,000,000 to a college which promises to name a building after me Consideration? Allegheny College

33

Allegheny College

Page 34: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Chartiable Subscriptions

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Did Salsbury rely on the subscription? Restatement § 90(2)

34

Page 35: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Chartiable Subscriptions

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Are you satisfied with the rationale?

35

Page 36: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Charitable Subscriptions

Can you reconcile Salsbury with DeLeo?

36

Page 37: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Charitable Subscriptions

Can you reconcile Salsbury with DeLeo? Illness Fiduciary relationship Oral promise Storage room?

37

Page 38: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Charitable Subscriptions

Should such promises automatically be binding? Is that what 90(2) requires?

Comment f

38

Page 39: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Charitable Subscriptions

Why so few such cases?

39

Page 40: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin p. 191

40

W.T. Smith Lumber Co., Chapman AL

Page 41: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin

41

J. Greeley McGowin

Page 42: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Recall Bailey v. West

Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract?

42

Page 43: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Recall Bailey v. West

Is Webb a suitable case for relief in quasi-contract?

What did the promise add?

43

Page 44: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a

consideration problem?

44

Page 45: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a

consideration problem? The past consideration rule

45

Page 46: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Treat this as a contracts case. Is there a

consideration problem? The past consideration rule The material benefits rule:

Restatement § 86

46

Page 47: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Can you distinguish it from Mills v.

Wyman: p.192?

47

Page 48: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Webb v. McGowin Can you distinguish it from Mills v.

Wyman? What about Boothe v. Fitzpatrick (p. 198)

48

Page 49: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Previously binding promises Restatement § 82

Statute of Limitations Restatement § 83

Debt discharged in bankruptcy Restatement § 85

Voidable duties

49

Page 50: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Pitching ideas: Desny v. Wilder p. 193

50

Page 51: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

The Material Benefits Rule

Pitching ideas: Desny v. Wilder Was this a valid contract?

What would the implied terms be? What if the secretary had not promised?

51

Page 52: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers Why does this make sense?

52

Page 53: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers When doesn’t it make sense?

53

Page 54: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers What purposes are served by option

contacts?: Restatement §§ 25, 37, 87(1)

54

Page 55: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers What purposes are served by option

contacts? Hedging strategies

55

Page 56: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers What purposes are served by option

contacts? Compensation schemes

56

Page 57: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers What purposes are served by option

contacts? Land assembly and hold-outs

57

Page 58: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The consideration requirement amounts to a presumption against irrevocable offers What purposes are served by option

contacts? Pre-contractual reliance expenditures

58

Page 59: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

The Brooklyn Bridge example: p. 232

59

Page 60: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40

60

Page 61: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40 Full performance of unilateral contract: St. Peter

61

Page 62: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40 Full performance of unilateral contract: St. Peter Acceptance through part performance: Restatement §

34(2)

62

Page 63: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40 Full performance of unilateral contract: St. Peter Acceptance through part performance: Restatement §

34(2) Acceptance through reliance: Restatement § 34(3)

63

Page 64: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40 Full performance of unilateral contract: St. Peter Acceptance through part performance: Restatement §

34(2) Acceptance through reliance: Restatement § 34(3) Promissory Estoppel: Restatement § 90

64

Page 65: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Revocation not effective unless communicated:

Restatement § 40 Full performance of unilateral contract: St. Peter Acceptance through part performance: Restatement §

34(2) Acceptance through reliance: Restatement § 34(3) Promissory Estoppel: Restatement § 90 Collateral option contract: Restatement § 45

65

Page 66: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Are all of these consistent with the idea that the

offeror’s intention to create legal relations is determinative?

66

Page 67: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Irrevocable Offers

Legal restrictions on the right to revoke an offer? Firm offers under UCC § 2-205

Is this related in any way to offeree reliance?

67

Page 68: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Construction Contracts

Client

General Contractor

Sub-contractor

68

Page 69: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson p. 234

NIH

PEI (Pavel/HVAC)

Johnson (Kick)

69

Page 70: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Aug. 5: subcontractor bids Aug. 26: PEI asks Johnson for fresh bid

breaking out Powers project Aug. 30: PEI “accepts” Johnson’s bid Sept. 1: Johnson notes an error and

seeks to withdraw bid Sept. 2: PEI affirms contract Sept. 28: NIH awards contract to PEI

70

Page 71: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson have the right to revoke its offer? Contingent option contract under which

the subcontractors could not withdraw if PEI was awarded the contract by NIH, but could withdraw prior thereto

71

Page 72: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Contingent option contract under which the subcontractors could not withdraw if PEI was awarded the contract by NIH, but could withdraw prior thereto

Was this unfair to PEI?

72

Page 73: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Was there sufficient detrimental reliance to raise a promissory estoppel?

73

Page 74: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Was there sufficient detrimental reliance to raise a promissory estoppel? What was the relevance of the Aug. 26 fax

on the POWERS breakout.

74

Page 75: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Was there sufficient detrimental reliance to raise a promissory estoppel? Baird v. Gimbel: subcontractor withdraws

two days before contractor awarded the contract

75

Page 76: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Was there sufficient detrimental reliance to raise a promissory estoppel? Where subcontractor withdraws a month

before contractor is awarded the contract, what is the latter to do?

76

Page 77: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

Was there sufficient detrimental reliance to raise a promissory estoppel? If the subcontractor is locked in, can the

contractor shop around?

77

Page 78: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Pavel v. Johnson

Did Johnson revoke its offer? Had it the right to do so?

You are the subcontractor. How do you protect yourself in such cases?

78

Page 79: 1 George Mason School of Law Contracts I Promissory Estoppel F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu.

Good luck!

79